Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> That, or we create the makefiles in a fixed system and keep the
>>> Makefiles in CVS (though would be derived files).
>
>> IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
>> fewer platforms than pgsql.
>
>> However, if we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
>> derived files, that could certainly work...
>
> Not really, as it still disenfranchises developers who don't have or
> know how to use cmake (or whatever tool you select). This is not like
> bison or flex, which you can avoid learning and still be able to work on
> many interesting parts of Postgres. If you can't work with the build
> system then you can't even add a new source file, and that's a pretty
> crippling restriction.
It would require developer education, absoulutely, but it would fix the
cross platform problem, which is what I was referring to.
> I've never worked with cmake, but the info on their home page sounds
> like it would work on all the systems we are interested in.
It does look pretty good on that - probably they've fixed the ones that
were missing when it was discussed before. Or my memory just sucks,
that's also a clear possibility.
> I think
> the $64 question is whether we can make it sit up and do all the tricks
> that are in our Makefiles now.
Having never used it, I can't comment on that.
> In any case, the conversion cost would
> be pretty darn sizable --- not only the effort from a few people to do
> the initial conversion, but the distributed costs of all developers
> having to learn cmake. I'm not sure we want to go there ... not yet
> anyway ...
Oh yes, it's a huge change. I think we should go with the current method
a bit longer to see how it holds up before making such a decision.
//Magnus
